At first the article seemed interesting and well thought out, but in the end just attempted to use magic to explain near death experiences. It's amazing how quick he bashes anyone that disagrees with his beloved Hancock and other new agers, but refuses to actually use the facts in his research.

The first step in becoming a debunker is to immediately relinquish that title and establish your credentials by calling yourself either a skeptic or a scientist.

This seems taken wrongly. If you are not a scientist the you will not call out to be a scientist.
I worked with scientists, I wanted to become an astronomer but I never claimed anywhere that I am a scientist.
I also will never call myself a skeptic because the word skeptics is being misused

Ignore the fact that a true scientist would say that all claims require the same proportion of evidence.

I have a problem with this claim of his.
I do not think that a true scientist will claim such a thing.

The trick for the debunker is to take Occam's Razor and use it not as a handy rule of thumb to aid critical thinking, but instead to impose it as a literal and immutable law of the universe which immediately destroys your opponent's arguments.

I do not know anyone debunking stuff doing this.

Another problem with the modern scientific viewpoint is that too often it is considered complete.

I never heard any scientist claiming that any theory is complete.

Any attempts by 'pseudo-scientists' to investigate outside this world-view are regarded as a threat, an attempt to pull the comfortable rug out from beneath the debunker's feet.